alphatango

FWIW, I polled 5 pairs at my most recent duplicate who finished their rounds early at various points in the evening (field size = 13). Average club duplicate, quality not high. None played a multi 2♦ opening (methods were split between three weak twos, and strong 2♣+strong 2♦+weak 2s in the majors). I offered the auction 2♦-(Pass)-4♣-Pass-4♥ (modified from the OP), and explained that 2♦ showed a weak two in either hearts or spades. I did not volunteer an explanation of 4♣. Me: "What do I have?" Four of the five pairs asked what 4♣ showed. (One pair did not ask about the 4♣ bid, and responded "Hearts, no club support.") Me: "It asks me to transfer to my major." All four pairs then said that I should have a weak two in spades.

EDIT: Misapprehended the temporal ordering. Post revised. Do we believe that West would always choose to change 2♠ to pass? He wasn't offered the option at the table. Maybe we should consider giving NS some percentage of West balancing 2♠, possibly leading to 4♥+2 depending on what we find out about NS's system. Am surprised that they have the agreement that 2♦ is forcing (even on a weak hand with diamonds)...but if that's really their agreement, then perhaps pass is not an LA any more. It would certainly not warrant a PP. EDIT: Even if 2♦ is not forcing on a weak hand with diamonds, I still don't think pass is an LA when holding Kxxxx in partner's apparent suit. 3NT doesn't look that far away (even Txx-xxx-Qxxxx-xx has chances on a spade lead). However, I think 3♦ is an LA, and the UI suggests all other sensible actions (X, 2NT, 3NT) over it. Where the auction goes from there (i.e. whether South "wakes up" after a 3D rebid) is not clear, of course.

West, of course, should have been offered a chance to change their 2♠ call (21B1a)...

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

No. All of 2NT (15-17), 2NT (15-19), and 2NT (18-19) would be forcing, and the opponents would expect it to be so. That eliminates clause 3.2.2a. Nor is the agreement as to strength sufficiently unexpected to qualify under 3.2.2b. I assume they do not normally alert the 2NT rebid, but that would be worth investigating. There being no apparent UI, result stands. Is the auction suspicious? Not enough info, but it will be highly dependent on other agreements. Do all hands with a second suit bid it over 2NT, or only hands with slam interest? What about extra length (e.g. ten cards in the red suits)?

They may have done poorly in choosing a clear rather than a borderline example. :) However, I think a declarer claiming all the tricks with only one suit left is equivalent to "cashing" that suit, hence from the top down. (For the record, that means I would also award three tricks to declarer who claimed all the tricks holding 652 as their last three cards with the 3 outstanding.)

For the record, in Australia (presumably the jurisdiction involved in the OP): So declarer gets all the tricks here.

(Expressing no opinion on the merits, but...) Are they? It sounds as though the TD ruled (point of law) that he was allowed to consider declarer's second statement. It seems to me that for technical correctness, the AC (who clearly disagreed with the director on this point) should have firstly recommended that the TD reconsider that part of his ruling, and secondly ruled itself on the validity of the revised claim. But perhaps all that is too much to ask of a committee?

Sorry, my previous post was written quickly and imprecisely. I was indeed aware of that law, and what I meant to ask was: 1. In the current scenario, are we satisfied that the UI that partner has two hearts does not suggest one play over another (and so, assuming West gets the subsequent play right, the defenders make one trick)? (The situation may be different if East had exposed all of his cards, of course.) 2. In the hypothetical scenario where the claim is for all the tricks, no concession has taken place, so 68B2 cannot apply. Does West have any way to avoid a "careless or inferior" play being imposed upon him in the adjudication of the claim?

Almost. It is not clear whether third hand is allowed to pause (say, with a singleton) even if declarer has paused appropriately. But it is certainly a big step in the right direction. In some of my partnerships, where both of us consistently pause at trick one regardless of the position, I've added a "Third-hand defensive pauses at trick one may be unrelated to current play" line to the pre-alert section of our system card. I'm hoping that's enough. (I think it goes a fair way towards not misleading the opponents, anyway.)

1. Suppose West immediately objected to the claim (more precisely, his partner's concession of a trick), not on the basis that they were entitled to a different number of tricks, but solely to avoid being required to make a "careless or inferior" play. Is that permitted? Would we now allow defenders their trick? 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, hypothetical follow-up: Suppose, in an alternative position, defender East claims all the tricks, but the claim is flawed; defenders can still get all the tricks, but it depends on West's choice of plays (from among normal lines). Can West still immediately object in order to save his side's trick(s)?

From what I read, "convincing evidence" is not the standard required by L75C. Rather, if there is any evidence that there is a mistaken call, then the parenthetical sentence in L75C does not apply and the proper standard appears to be L85A1 ("balance of probabilities").

That seems sensible, except that when a declarer says "I have five clubs and four diamonds", it suggests that he believes he's cashing winners (and so would be awarded nine tricks here, assuming the appropriate 70E2 "top-down" regulation). Or are you saying that 70E1 overrides this?

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree that's what the law says, but I think I understand why you and Ton are interpreting it the way you do.

I think that Ton and jhenrikj are arguing that where: Revoke 1 by NS is established Revoke 2 by EW is not established (and is corrected) then, at the end of play, we apply 64A to Revoke 1, and 64B does not apply because Revoke 2 was never established. I'm not sure which words in the law are being used to support this view, though. It seems to me that 64B applies whenever 64A is invoked. (By the way, I do not think 64A is overridden by 62D. I think it is overridden by the wording of 64B6: no 64A rectification "if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick".)